FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC v. SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
Summary: A district court’s construction of a claim term that is contrary to the plain language of the claims and usage of the term in the specification was erroneous.
Sigmapharm, Hikma, Breckenridge, Alembic, and Amneal filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to market generic versions of Saphris, a drug product sold by Forest. Saphris is an antipsychotic drug administered under the tongue. Forest sued for patent infringement. After a bench trial, the district court held, inter alia, that Forest had not established infringement of one of the asserted claims as to Alembic and Breckenridge because the claim at issue was directed to “a method for treating tension, excitation, anxiety, and psychotic and schizophrenic disorders” and Alembic’s and Breckenridge’s ANDA products were indicated for treatment of “manic episodes” associated with bipolar I disorder. Forest appealed the district court’s finding of non-infringement by Breckenridge and Alembic.
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to reconsider infringement of the relevant claim under a corrected claim construction for “excitation.” The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in treating “excitation” as limited to “excitation disorders,” not to symptoms of such, because “[t]he use of the conjunction ‘and’ before ‘psychotic and schizophrenic disorders’ indicates that ‘psychotic and schizophrenic disorders’ is a distinct item on the list, and that unlike the terms ‘psychotic’ and ‘schizophrenic,’ the words ‘tension,’ ‘excitation,’ and ‘anxiety’ are not describing ‘disorders.’ This is consistent with how ‘excitation’ is used elsewhere in the specification.” The Federal Circuit construed “excitation” to refer to a symptom of a disease or disorder and remanded the case for the district court to consider infringement using the proper construction of “excitation.”
More insights
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…
When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict
Written by : Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION] Before Chen , Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary : A verdict form…